Teaching outdoor and adventure activities: an investigation of a primary school physical education professional development p

Theoretical Framework 
A critical part of research is its theoretical framework. The nature and structure 
of a theory often reflects a particular paradigm consistent with a certain philosophy as 
‘it organises a complex environment, like a physical education class, and helps you to 
know where to look, what question to ask, and which answers are more likely to provide 
new insights’ (Ennis, 1999, p. 133). A clear understanding of the research paradigm is 
essential when designing and undertaking a research study (Creswell, 2003; Lincoln & 
Guba, 2000). Guba (1990) uses the most common description of the term when he 
describes a paradigm as ‘a basic set of beliefs that guides action, whether of the 
everyday garden variety or action taken in connection with a disciplined inquiry’ (p. 
17). LeCompte and Schensul (1999) define a paradigm as ‘a way of looking at the 
world; interpreting what is seen; and deciding which of the things seen by researchers 
are real, valid and important to document’ (p. 41). All paradigms can be characterised 
by how they respond to three basic questions about (a) the nature of reality (ontology); 
(b) the nature of the relationship between the known and the knower (epistemology); (c) 
how it should be studied (methodology)
(Creswell, 2003; Guba, 1990; Guba & Lincoln, 
1994; Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). The answers to these questions define the 
paradigm that might be adopted for a particular study. It is important to note that all 
paradigms are of human construction and therefore subject to all problems that 
accompany human endeavours.
Philosophical assumptions underpinning this study.
Since the latter part of 
the 19
th
century there has been much debate about qualitative and quantitative research 
paradigms (Onwuegbuzie, 2002). Quantitative researchers tend to express positivist 
assumptions, while qualitative researchers reject positivism and use interpretivism.
During the 1950s and 1960s post-positivism emerged where the belief was that reality is 
constructed and that research is influenced by the values of the researcher. The shift in 
paradigm development mirrors changing times in the world around us and these 
changes all impact on how we approach research. Recent developments and many 

---

8 
issues which face society, for example, emphasis on areas such as empowerment and 
feminism, espouse the use of mixed methods in research in order to provide the most 
comprehensive strategy to answer the complex research questions (Creswell, 2003; 
Onwuegbuzie, 2002; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). This study seeks to describe, 
analyse and understand teachers’ and children’s experiences, of a contextualised, whole 
school professional development programme in primary physical education. The 
exploratory nature of the research questions guiding this study would suggest a 
qualitative approach is the most appropriate. Aspects of knowledge in certain contexts 
throughout the study may require a quantitative approach and, in this study, these too 
had an inductive theoretical drive. While there is merit in exploring the fundamental 
assumptions and beliefs of the main qualitative paradigms because according to 
Munhall (2001, p. 4) ‘…using the concreteness of placing paradigms in stark relief to 
one another should be of assistance to our beginning understanding of world various 
views’, there is little space, and a descriptive account would add little value. An 
interpretive paradigm guided this study, this section critically analyses the assumptions 
underlying this interpretive paradigm, examines social constructivist theory, and 
establishes a rationale for this research approach.
Interpretivism and constructivism are linked to the social sciences (Schwandt, 
1994). Both share the goal of understanding the ‘…world of lived experience from the 
point of view of those who live it’ (Schwandt, 1994, p. 118). Social reality is 
considered to exist as individuals’ experience it and assign meaning to it (Schwandt, 
2003). To understand ‘the world of the lived experience’ the researcher must interpret it 
by clarifying the meanings buried in people’s actions and language (Sarantakos, 1998; 
Schwandt, 1994). Constructivists and interpretivists start from the same understanding 
but differ with respect to epistemological assumptions (Schwandt, 1994).